apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] apr_lock.h update to remove/fix CROSS_PROCESS vs LOCKALL
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:07:30 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:46:39PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > Note that APR currently doesn't have the right information now to set
> > APR_PROCESS_LOCK_MECH_IS_GLOBAL properly, so we end up getting two
> > locks instead of one on some platform/mechanisms where it isn't really
> > needed.
> > 
> > But assuming that we get more hints or whatever to turn on
> > APR_PROCESS_LOCK_MECH_IS_GLOBAL in more cases then magic should
> > happen.
> How would we even go about determining this?  Do we add this into
> apr_hints.m4 for each platform/OS that we know 
> APR_PROCCESS_LOCK_MECH_IS_GLOBAL can be safely set, or can we 
> somehow write an autoconf test for this?  (I have no clue how we could
> write a test for this - this seems awfully complex).  -- justin 

note that APR_PROCESS_LOCK_MECH_IS_GLOBAL is not cool :(  we need
something more granular, like


It is specific not just to the platform but to the mechanism.

I wrote a simple APR app to test this out...  I'll try to find time
this evening to remove some bogosity, re-test, and post the app.  I
don't think the bogosity affects the outcome but I need to

Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net | PGP public key at web site:
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message